Tag Archives: founding fathers

1. to adjust (the amount of heat, sound, etc, of something) as required; control

2. to adjust (an instrument or appliance) so that it operates correctly

3. to bring into conformity with a rule, principle, or usage

I begin with a simple definition for a simple word, that still misses the most fundamental mark. The beauty of our Founding Documents was that they were legal documents written in language that the common man might understand. One did not need extensive legal training to understand and discuss the very nature of government and the principles by which they governed. Great care was given to what words were used and how those words might be twisted by future generations to counter the intent of the Founders. In one of the more well known examples (though still obscure considering how few people know this factoid) Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence he listed the inalienable rights as “Life, Liberty, and Property.” Understanding that this might be used to cement the notion that one man can own another as property the text was changed to be what we all know it to be today; “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Sturmabteilung – The SA (also known as stormtroopers or brownshirts) were instructed to disrupt the meetings of political opponents and to protect Hitler from revenge attacks.

One thing I have always admired about the Founding Fathers is there simplicity. They didn’t obfuscate words or require over a thousand pages of literature to write the Constitution. They understood that the more laws you make, the less free a society is. That’s why the Constitution is a relatively small document compared to the reams of crap that DC churns out each year.

For example, the 4A states;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

That means that Freedom (F) times (*) Security (S) equals (=) a constant (k). The suggestion is that you can only add more security at the cost of having less freedom. In reality, the equation is far from being a proof, but the concept is brilliant.

We have some people that would rather have greater freedom, at the cost of reduced security, and we have other people that would rather have more security, even if it costs some freedom.

This dynamic struggle between freedom and security is always a problem. Government could always do more to allow more freedom, and it could always do more to create (at least a sense of) more security. Very rarely, if ever, can a government create both more freedom and more security at the same time. So, we are stuck struggling between the two ideals.